Some sources say the optical formula of the new Sigma includes two new fluorite elements, others claim the old version also had two fluorite elements. I guess I have no idea now. If the optical formula is the same, then I say buy the old lens instead. I'm not sure the old 2011 lens is worth having, for me...but I am not ready to spend that much on a telephoto yet anyway. For me, the choice is between buying something like this Sigma, or else a used 200 f/2 Canon (and use TC's). I would really rather have the Canon, but I also like the convenience of zooms...a lot. I certainly wouldn't buy the new 200-400 f/4 Canon, even if I could afford it. I would feel like a fool for spending that much on a lens...even if I was making money with it. How many of us are making $10,000 every 3 or 4 months, just from shooting through a supertelephoto? If you are, I'm quite envious!

I actually bought the old (current) version of this lens. It´s great! I cant compare it to the Canon 300/2.8 as I have never used that lens but for the price it is absolutely great.

It´s well built, it is SHARP and it focuses well; although I have only tried it on tractors so far and they are not the fastest moving subjects (15 km/h heading straight for the camera). If focus misses it does hunt for a little while. I can see the use of a focus limiter but the extra premium to pay for that feature is not at all worth it to me.

I took some shots of fertilizing crops with artificial fertilizer with my mkIII and the lens @ 300 /2.8. When zoomed into 200% every grain of fertilizer is visible. It´s silly how sharp it is. Then the "negative" side is that it has some pretty heavy vinjetting so the corners are pretty dark but there is no way I could afford the canon 300 /2.8 L IS anyway.I´m most pleased. One thing that made the whole thing even sweeter was that I could haggle for the lens + 5d mkIII kombo, lowering the prize with about 15%, agruing that the lens is an old design that they soon could not sell.

If you want i can try to remember to post the photo later this evening.

Oh and one last thing, a lens this expensive is supposed to earn me money over a perriod of say ten years. In other cases a purchase would be hard to justify.

Mr. Bad Duck, I don't know if I'm supposed to laugh or not. Pics of fertilizer? Hahah, ok. Tractors? That would be more interesting. Post some shots of tractors. Are you making money by selling prints of tractors? Sounds like fun!

I do like all types of machinery, but especially sports cars. My brother owns some tractors and dozers. I admit there is a lot of genuine peace, when you're out on a tractor...I'm usually mowing. I also like the "box scrape" attachment...a lot! But If I have to use one to carry logs or something, that is a bit more hectic and less peaceful. I guess it's not as bad as shooting at your cousin with a crossbow, over the ownership of sunken logs...down in the swampland!

Don't you think the person you haggled with, might read this post of how much you love the lens, and be angry that you're bragging how you got him to come down on the price? You know, because it's an "old lens" and nobody will want it? Hahaha...

This is good news that the new lens will be released in a month or so. However, it does bother me if it is not a new optical formula. Again, I thought the old lens didn't have fluorite elements, but one chart I saw somewhere (I think in a recent issue of a photo magazine where they were comparing telephoto lenses)...did say the 2011 lens had 2 fluorite elements...

So...does anybody know if the new, 2013 lens, actually is a new optical formula or not? I guess it's possible it could still be a new formula, and yet still have the same number of fluorite elements (and not all fluorite is created equal). Or it's possible that chart I saw, was in error...and the 2011 lens doesn't have any fluorite...I just don't know.

And it's possible that the white lens fanboys will kick dirt on this new lens, no matter how good or bad it is...so I guess if we buy one, we should just paint it white. I admit the reason for the white color (to bring the lens to ambient air temperature) makes a lot of sense. I don't like working in extreme heat at all.

I wouldn't discount the advantage of having the USB port either, in case Canon messes with the AF firmware of a future camera. For that kind of money, it would be nice to be future proof. If I didn't already have the 70-200L ll, I would seriously be looking at this lens.

I wouldn't discount the advantage of having the USB port either, in case Canon messes with the AF firmware of a future camera. For that kind of money, it would be nice to be future proof. If I didn't already have the 70-200L ll, I would seriously be looking at this lens.

Excellent point! But for my money, I would hope the lens optics would start off being fantastic...the firmware update and adjustment capability, is a nice extra.

Mr. Bad Duck, I don't know if I'm supposed to laugh or not. Pics of fertilizer? Hahah, ok. Tractors? That would be more interesting. Post some shots of tractors. Are you making money by selling prints of tractors? Sounds like fun!

Don't you think the person you haggled with, might read this post of how much you love the lens, and be angry that you're bragging how you got him to come down on the price? You know, because it's an "old lens" and nobody will want it? Hahaha...

Happy to amuse you. I understand that shooting farmwork is a bit unusual. But I pay for all my photoequipment doing so and I really enjoy it. Fertilizing is big money, and intersting in many ways. It´s probably what keep you alive since we would procuce way less food without it. That is beside the point though, the 120-300 is sharp sharp sharp and seems to handle som abuse. I will find out if the second statement is true this winter after the season.

Nah, don´t think anyone will read this and be angry with me. They got the deal, and they made money. Everyone is happy, except perhaps for the three stores that did not get the deal. My point was that if I made it, perhaps so can you.

As for optical formula, I don´t think it is changed in the new lens. I head somwhere about rumors of new coating on a piece of glass or two, but I talked to some of the guys doing repairs for Sigma in Sweden, they said that no new glass was in the lists of repairitems for the new lens. Don´t know if that is true or not.

"Sport" is just a marketing gimmick anyway. The aesthetics of the new lens' body look a lot better than the 2011 version, though. If it's true that the optical formula is not new, then I'm not sure the new lens is worth buying.

I wasn't trying to minimize the importance of fertilizer...just wondered why people would buy pictures of fertilizer shot with a supertelephoto (if indeed they do).

I know the lens is sharp...in the center. My problem is, I like zooms, but I also want to be able to take the lens to 600mm and get good sharpness. I guess I'm out of luck, but that's ok, I don't yet have the funding to purchase. I'm leaning back towards a great white I suppose...In the meantime I'll enjoy the Sigma zoom lens I recently bought.

Since you mention food crops...I would like to make one point. The ethanol mandate needs to go away...permanently...:-D. That way you can grow your maze for what God intended it for...food...:-D. And our government has one less drop in the ocean of wasted trillions that our children and grandchildren will fight and die over...and LNG needs to take its place. It's the only true bridge fuel. And public "investing" in "renewables" needs to go away forever also...

Well, I haven´t sold any photos shot with the new lens yet. I have no doubt that I will though, but most pictures that I sell are being shot with the 24-105 L IS. Then some with 70-200 /4, some with 17-40 /L. But the exotic focal lenghts like 14 /2.8 and 300 /2.8 give those photos that stand out, even though they don´t always sell, but they might keep the viewer interested. And the competition may not use those lenses. I think it´s good to have them. I will know in a year or two if it was the ritght choise or not. And if it was a mistake, I don´t mind, it´s a fun lens to use.

I haven´t tried the lens with a 2x extender as I don´t own one. I will soon though, I just have to haggle the prices of a lenscoat and an extender... and perhaps a new tripod head... down a bit. Hehe great fun to haggle

Well, the energy situation in the world is problematic. We could save a LOT of energy by using better technology and be a bit smarter in our choises. For instance, the whole direct energy use in swedish farming could be saved from applying current technology and controlling the lighting of the swedish companies, so households not included, but the rest. Of course, thats electricity and you are talking about fuel. In Sweden there are projects to make ethanol from forrestry bi-products, and that is cool. Biogas is aslo cool but there is a huge problem to be solved with the quality of the residues so that it´s safe to use (once again) as fertilizer. If we could solve that and build a nice infrastructure, a lot of fuel could be produced from garbage. I totaly agree that food should be fuel for humans and animals, not mashines.

Warning - This whole post is off topic, ignore it if all you want is to read about the delay of the sigma 120-300.

Heh not your average kind of photography, agreed.Actually I´m not that professional. It´s 10-20% of my income. And at the moment it covers my expenses but not much more.

I shoot everything related to swedish agriculture (tractors, yes. But also landscapes and animals. Hopefully portraits of farmers aswell. Have done som food photography aswell but that is not my primary niche.) My customers are - Mashine companies who sell tractors, combines etc.- Organizations like the Federation of Swedish Farmers, Focus on Nutrients to name a few.- Advicing firms- Magazines

The tractor images that sell are of modern models. And the tricky part is that the plough or wagon or harrow or whatever is pulled with the tractor needs to be of a brand that my costumer also sell. Some of my best photos are of course with the wrong combination, and unsellable.

I have really not made any advertising yet. When I do I will also try to make banks and ensurance companies interested in my photos, since farmers are great and reliable costumers for them. Then I think I will turn to authorities.

It´s not a big market - but easy to navigate and not too much competition. It´s also quite easy to sell photos since for instance John Deere tractors usually have the rocky mountains or some huge field in I don´t know.. montana or texas or something, and that is NOT what fields in Sweden look like. I simply give my clients more suitable photos.

So... all those guys who tell you to specialize are quite right, specialize like crazy and you buissnies will be easier to manage, your clients will be easier to find and they will more easily find you. Now enough of my friends know what I do, so the clients come to me. So in a year or two, with more work, I hope to go to 50% photography. The rest of the time I work as an advicer and agricultural engineer (Degree of Master of Science (one year) in technology from the Swedish University of Agriculture) with a focus on renewable energy and comunication. My vacation is spent on my parents farm. Working with... you guessed right, agriculture. So photographing and farming in practise and in therory...

That´s me. So basicly, my shooting style has to be fast and my gear needs to be robust. I need fast lenses because I can´t rely on tripods while climbing up and down tractors and combines. Im often running along the tractor I am photographing with a 14mm lens on my 5d mkII or III and the other body is laying in a ditch or in a tractor nearby. It´s dirty, dusty and loud. I had an insect running around inside the viewfinder of my 5d mkII last autumn. Litteraly, it was inside my camera. Then I think it died because it was in my bottom left corner of the viewfinder. Could not see it when I removed the lens, not when I removed the focus screen.... and now it´s gone and since the camera is working, I really don´t mind. Was a bit of a surprise though, seeing the little fellow running around in there.

So the 120-300 is fast and long. I can stay on the edge of a field and compress lines from wheeltracks or whatever to get leading lines to the tractor. It´s also great for shooting cows and sheep; while they are not wild, they behave diffently if you get close. So a photo of a cow shot with a 300 /2.8 is very different from a photo taken with 35/1.4 since the cow would be curious if you get too close, changing her body language. And they might bump you hard if you get too close. But then again, as I said before, I have not sold any photo made with the 120-300 yet and it will take a year or two before I know if it was a good investment, but I have a feeling it is.

Oh, that´s a long reply and way of topic for this thread. I´m sorry fot that. But you asked

The Bad Duck, that's a great post, and I say not completely off topic, because you're describing your photographic work...some of which is with a related lens to the thread topic.

I thank you very much for telling of your work, it sounds like a whole lot of fun! I am a freak when it comes to working in dust...I try to avoid it...but I am missing out on some good photography. The key is that you enjoy your work, and not only that, you are making money! I admire your work ethic, and your capitalistic spirit!

I bet your shots with the Swedish landscape in the background look great!